Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Defense News" channel.

Ukraine starting to get a hang of things with the Abrams Now if they work in concert with Bradley , they would be more effective
19
Short answer is no Traditional helicopters will be still be around for long time jet engines replaced propellers but props are still very much in use because they still have advantages over jet engines Traditional helicopters still have a number of advantages over tilt rotors hence why they are not going anywhere
8
Exactly, it was wearing the T-90s ass out with 25mm
5
Simple lets see The F-35 has ample engine options while the J-20 and Su-57 has ample engine problems The F-35 is designed for a wide range of missons in stealth and non stealth whereas the Su-57 has rely on non stealth for max potential The J-20 is limited to carry Chinese small diameter bombs and thats all Besides air to air combat, the J-20 lacks multi mission capability
4
@Станислав-с6п8я We can safely say thats 100 percent a lie The Bradley's 25mm is very accurate and looking at video, the Bradley opened on the T-90 with High Explosive Incendiary rounds The Commanders and gunners sights are not well armored and very easy for 25mm to destroy so yes once, their sights were knocked out, the T-90 was not able to engage the Bradley and Bradley smartly kept the T-90s pinned with cannon fire The Bradley could have gone for tracks but that would have given the T-90s chance to engage with its main gun The engagement highlights with IFV/AFV need a missile that fire and forget but also be able to fired while moving
4
Why didnt they go with the UH-1Y
4
The Bradley stands apart because unlike Ukraine soviet era junk, the Bradley comes with advanced optics for day and night operations Ukraine is loving the fact that their forces can carry out night attacks much more effectively
3
The USMC and USAF have over 15 years of operation with the V-22 that show the benefits greatly outweigh the risks The deciding factor was aerial refueling The V-22 flies fast enough to be refueled in the air by KC-10, KC-46 and KC-135 which huge deal as it allows the V-22 to self deploy over long distance with very little effort As the V-280 is faster than V-22, it also means that it be refueled in the air by KC-10, KC-46 and KC-135 if equipped with aerial refueling UH-60s have to do complicated C-5 and C-17s breakdowns whereas the V-280 can potentially fly itself to the location, change crews, allow maintenance to do a quick turn and start operations with in 1 to 2 hours vs unloading , reassembling and testing.
3
The decision factor was the MV-22 In 15 years, the USAF and USMC have demonstrated the invaluable nature of tilt rotors The MV-22 can does not have to rely solely on KC/MC-130 for aerial refueling , it can be refueled by KC 10/46/135 The V-280 flies faster than the MV-22 which means it can also do the same UH-60 requires complex C-5 breakdowns to travel long distance a V-280 would only need a tanker In theory, a KC-46 could carry maintenance and parts while acting as a tanker for the V-280 All maintenance would have to do is do a quick turn, refuel while crew swaps crew and in a little as 1-2 hours ready to work vs unloading , reassembling and testing
3
Harrier going to strong
3
The F-15 that entered service in 1976 is nothing like the monster thats going enter service shortly The F-15 was analog whereas the F-15EX uses the latest FBW technology thus reducing its weight by several hundred pounds Thanks to that and several other advancements, the F-15EX is whole new monster with a lot of advantages For situations that does not require a 5th of 6th aircraft, it gives the USAF a cost effective option for dealing with situations
3
@BravoCheescake Thats very inaccurate comparison The UH-1H in Vietnam was single engine 1100 shp with max take off weight (MTOW) of 9500lbs which requires a lot aircraft to ferry troops The UH-60 is twin engine with 4000 shp with an MTOW of 22,000lbs The V-280 is also twin engine with 10,000 shp with MTOW of 30,000lbs , the future engine will increase to 14,000 shp At most , you only need 2 V-280 at most as it carry substantially more than the previous aircraft Now SB-1 Defiant may not be dead in the water yet MH-60 stealth modifcation likely won't work on the V-280 but it will with the SB-1 Defiant design so SOCOM and 160th soar may push for a number of SB-1 Defiant for the Special ops role if the SB-1 Defiant can show it can perform aerial refueling
3
@BravoCheesecake Incorrect "Quote The book said you could put 13 troops in there. I never saw 13 Americans in a Huey," says Harry Kernahan, who flew the UH-1D "Slick", a utility version without weapons pods, in the central highlands of South Vietnam from 1969 to 1970. "It just wouldn’t get off the ground." "I would imagine we often flew those things over max gross weight," he adds Quote Out of necessity, pilots became experts at using unorthodox methods to coax overweight Hueys off the ground, including an odd-to-see technique where a pilot would bounce the helicopter down the runway on its skids until it got enough speed to gain translational lift and climb aloft. "People came up with solutions to a lot of different problems that weren't in the book," Kernahan says As I stated before The UH-1H only had 1100 shp as you stated allowed it hold up to 10 troops sometimes The V-280 10,000- 14,000 shp allows to consistently carry heavy load without any adverse effects as it literally has power to spare secondly , those troops in Vietnam carried very little gear most of time , Again with V-280, they can carry all their gear and again wouldnt affect the V-280 hat in a future conflict in a jungle environment, you would want to land more helicopters in a tighter space- False That's arm charm statement This is modern warfare We are not going to put troops in a jungle when MQ-9 can easily spot and destroy targets The factor you dont understand was boots on the ground was the only way to find enemy back then Today, there a dozens of ways dont' involve boots on ground
3
That would be false First, the USAF air superiority aircraft are the F-15C and F-22A. The USAF has too few F-22s and the F-15C are very old. There is no way to increase the F-22s but they can increase their F-15s number. Secondly the USAF would not like to replace its F-15s with F-35s. First, the F-15C range is over 1000 miles and get be increased with CFTs to over 1300 miles. The F-35 range is just 660 miles. The F-15 can loiter for hours which is ideal for ANG mission. For the ANG mission, the F-35 stealth is not relevant. The F-35 has AESA as the F-15EX. The F-35 has EOTS/IRST , again so does the F-15EX. Advanced data links and comms. Again as does the F-35 The F-35 DAS and Stealth are the only features that F-15EX does not have More to the point, the F-15EX can equipped with Legion, Sniper and Dragon pods without impacting the F-15EX weapons carriage. Now as far as the single and two seater Again you have no glue. While most the F-15Xs can be single seaters, there are several advantages to two seaters First is training. makes training that much easier Secondly in combat, while the single seaters are spread. The 2 seaters with WSO/EW can quarterback the entire operation allowing the single seater pilots to focus on the mission The USN has tailored 3 EA-18Gs working in tandem can track and identify targets at long range. That some concept the F-15EX can use, the pilot is flying while the WSOs/EWs are working to together to identify possible targets without having to rely on AWACS too much. Secondly for the ANG misson. Again two seater are ideal for the long haul missions that ANG does. Not every mission requires two seaters but its also great to have that option in case. As far as bailing out of Boeing lets see Pop quiz Who makes the JDAM, SLAM/Harpoon Super Hornet, Growler, V-22s, CH-47 Boeing has very very long customer list in the defense industry that hasnt changed much Boeing only problem is he 737 MAX. There are no issues with the 777 or lack of orders
3
Interesting ,I wonder is the GE38 is still on the table as optional engine
2
@nymphetts True Russia has a lot of tanks but against the UK, they are basically worthless Here's is the rub Air power matters, armor does not In the Gulf War, Iraq has thousands of tanks however the west negated that with simple air power The A-10 was chewing Iraqi armor with everything from its 30mm cannon to AGM-65 maverick Additionally, the US coined tank plinking by have aircraft drop 500lbs laser guided bombs on Iraqi and lastly with CBU-87s The UK doesnt have the same toys as the US but they still have toys The Eurofighter can carry up 16 Brimstone missiles or 12 SPEAR-3 or 6 Paveway IV The UK also has Apache gunships able to carry up 16 Hellfires or JAGMs All the UK has to do is have its F-35B fly SEAD and knock out again SHORAD as well medium to long radar air defenses in the area and let the Typhoons and Apaches go to work The F-35B can also perform CAP against enemy fighters with Meteor missiles 4 Apaches fully loaded is 64 missile as is 4 Typhoons Typhoons and Apaches working sync can easily negate tanks numbers
2
Boeing has many customers for the F-15 advanced models. About 400 orders, only 144 are for the USAF, the rest is other countries
2
There are plenty of ways to deal with drones Ideally for the booker, they need adopt the AbramXs 30mm with dual feed mounted to CROWS and pair it with advanced APS The dual feed would be HEDP for general use and Airburst rounds for C-UAS, anti-missile The APS would need a 4 panel sensor as well auto engagement That would be the best hard kill option As for EW, its easier but the problem there is while EW can jam communication, if the drone still has enough inertia, it can still on target and still hit There are EW that can fry the drone electronics but that requires power So question is how much power does the Booker have to spare
2
@Loooppp No The US Marines retired their tanks as it was too heavy for maneuver warfare and the US Army based on Ukraine is finalizing what features next gen armor needs
2
@Loooppp No , the Abrams uses a gas turbine which has proven to be highly reliable and delivers excellent power to weight ratio however its not fuel efficient. There are no Abrams in the UK as they are based in Germany not UK
2
What are you going to protest The V-280 flew 214 hours whereas the SBD1 flew barely 30 hours The V-280 cruises at 280 knots whereas the SBD1 cruises 250 The V-280 bet the SBD1 in every way
2
@irvhh143 What planet do you live on ? its not about lift its about maturity The V-280 checks every box The SBD-1 has considerably less in every category
2
@johnadams8445 One of the reasons why the V-280 was selected was the MV-22 The MV-22 has shown that it can fly fast enough to be refueled by KC-10 The MV-22 cruises at 300 mph The V-280 currently at 320 mph which means it can also be refueled by a KC-10 in the air That opens the door for rapid self deployment The UH-60 has to be broken down for C-5 or C-17 while the V-280 can fly direct without having to do break down Thats if the Army smartly makes aerial refueling standard on all aircraft
2
@lolkevandewitte1713 Boeing has many other products besides the 737 MAX. Yes there commercial airline side has taken a hit because of the issues with the MAX but its defense program are still solid cash cows for them
2
The F-14 design is not as adaptable
2
@patrickcamp5885 Thats 10 hours and thats assuming that aircraft tests up vs a crew change , 2 hour D/T and refuel As far speed goes Props are never going away jet engines have speed but not fuel efficiency unless someone makes break through
1
@senianns9522 Ideally the simple solution is Stryker or JTLV with the radar and 30mm cannon traveling as escort Able to fire while moving both 30mm and missile such as the Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket (LOGIR) Germany makes a 30mm variant of their highly AHEAD rounds which can kill a drone with one shot The 30mm AHEAD rounds has 160 tungsten sub-projectiles and its basically a giant shotgun shell That would be the ideal solution But tanks still need their own protection thats a CROWS with an autocannon with airburst rounds thats pretty much the only option Ukraine has shown that in addition to APS They need defense against drones. which APS cant do
1
The F-14 is where it belongs, only the scrap pile. The F-14 was too much of problem child and not worth the effort.
1
The only issue with the turbine is that not fuel efficient.
1
The distance was too close for a TOW iif the Bradley had Javelin instead of TOW They could engaged in direct fire mode with Javelin and knocked it out The only mistake they made was not coordinating better They should go high low Burst on turrent, then on track While the turret can withstand, the tracks would give out very quickly and leave it unable to move
1
@irvhh143 No you are literally an idiot It cost car companies at most 300,000 dollars at most to develop a new car This contract called for 240 mil per company and 5 year development There is literally zero parallels or comparison between the 2
1
Its called Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) and very possible that it would work but countermeasures can be affected by various factors its not perfect
1
The only difference between the USN FA/XX and USAF PCA/ADF is that the FA/XX needs low speed qualities for carrier operations. Low speed was a bane to the F-14 so the USN not looking to repeat that. There has been a lot of talk about the X-32, X-36 and YF-23 designs being recycled for use as possible 6th gen. They should really go clean sheet vice trying to recycle.
1
@charles harper That's pretty stupid. The US is extremely good at raining cruise missiles, drones and decoys. Iran's defense will be working full time trying to avoid being destroyed themselves Keeping their planes on the ground just makes them a target. More to the point, they will be a target either way,
1
@ @charlesharper2357 "The Iranians will just pull their aircraft out of " LMAO and that will do what exactly As stated before, the US will rain cruises missiles, drones and decoys so Iran's defense will be working hard just to avoid destruction, let alone protect the Iran air force. Every air base Iran has is on the first strike list and Iran has very few tankers Pulling its aircraft out of range to where ? Tehran to Asalouyeh is 600 miles. Asalouyeh sits right on Iran's coast USAF F-15C combat radius is 1000 miles. F-15E Strike Eagles is 790 miles and F-22s 600 miles So once the USN and USMC clear out Iran's defenses , USAF assets will have free range of the country. So what air to air combat will be going down ? zero
1
@givemethedaily1052 There is a lot of work but the USMC and USAF operation with the MV-22 will answer all those questions
1
@BravoCheesecake The reason that for that was the limited range and payload of the UH-1H Those bunch of numbers which clearly went completely over your head as they explained that fact V-280 has substantially greater payload which allow sit to carry more per trip In other words, the V-280 does more with less aircraft
1
@JSonMaui Exactly The UH-1 series lacked power hence why they had be used in large numbers as well as the techniques for taking off heavily I was trying to find but there was Blackhawk crew who did the same thing , I believe , it was Afghan where they were overloaded but had to employ some techniques to get enough lift
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 The 160th budget is different from other units due to the highly specialized nature of their aircraft. Secondly even if the Army doesnt wanna foot the bill SOCOM can still foot it with ease Its not about being routine its called special mission use.
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 They have basically a blank check to do whatever and that would cover bringing 6 to 12 Defiants into the fold The current estimate for a V-280 is 43 mil. The UH-60M costs 25 mil. So even at a cost of say 50 mil per for 12 units its very easy to cover the estimated 1.5 bil for aircraft, maintenance, training and logistics when US military spends 30 billion alone just on special forces
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 Its not inconceivable Its literally in the budget
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 thats why its called black budget
1
@ChrisJones-fm6wp The USAF was using it for ICBM sites so its lift capability is plus for them but shall see
1
@VenturiLife Easting 73 where Bradley engaged T-72s and won
1
@Angry-Lynx The 25mm cannon can mobility kill a T-72 but needs the TOW for kill kill Bradley is much better taking on other AFV and IFVs Its not know if the Bradley has BGM-71F TOW The 71F is the most variant lethal of the TOW against armor because its a top attack weapon Bypasses the T-90s,80s, and 72s ERA/NERA/Armor and attack where the armor is the thinnest like the Javelin The Bradleys only weakness with the TOW is reloading If the US could make autoloading variant with TOW like the BMP-3 "Khrizantema-S Able to reload in secs, then hunting tanks would be in order
1
The F-35A and F-35C can use the B61 internally. The F-35B has to carry externally
1
@Timothy Mckee True but the F-15 was built from the ground up whereas the F-14 is basically a heavily reengineered F-111
1
@Timothy Mckee The F-111 had a great career with the USAF, but for the USN It was a dead end
1
@Timothy Mckee Also a dead for the USN Aircraft designed for the USAF dont mix for the USN
1